california, and till you're able to get some of the two major areas, san francisco to l.a., you're only talking about the central valley. i think that's a proposition unless there's a guaranteed availability payments that are mentioned before. then no one would be willing to take that risk because there's a history of large traffic between bakersfield and fresno. >> but at some point you're still going to connect by the california plan on san francisco to l.a. year $68 billion project, and you've got a much larger investment between state and federal dollars. why wouldn't that be less risk, and less a huge question of ridership between the two corridors. >> i think maybe all goes to the faces. it's hard to say which is better if both of them were built tomorrow and they were done, i think it would both actually in the u.s., both very interesting and potentially very viable project. i think it's just, it's difficult to be able to convince the private sector that the timeline is going to be with any reason the amount of time. most of these funds have been raised to try to be invested over